Chapter 24: The Essentials of a Good Education in Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools
Citation: Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Vintage.
Summary: Acclaimed education historian and policy analyst Diane Ravitch has many ideas about how to improve public education. Ravitch's third solution states, "Every school should have a full, balanced and rich curriculum, including the arts, science, history, literature, civics, geography, foreign languages, mathematics, and physical education" (Ravitch, 2013). Having a full range of electives and academic opportunities is a reality for schools in affluent communities, but children who grow up in low-income areas do not have a similar experience with curriculum. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have linked federal funding and teacher evaluation to high test scores in math and reading, thus undermining the value of enriching academic areas other than those that are tested. Ravitch asserts that the sole purpose of education is "to prepare everyone to assume the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy," and that narrow curricula are not going to provide enough inspiration and information to students who are learning where their place in society will be. Rather than putting all of a school's resources and energy into a few subjects, Ravitch suggests that studying civics, government, economics, statistics, foreign language, creative writing, and the arts to help prepare students for life ahead. It is a diverse curriculum and ample opportunities for personal growth that will provide the time and place for the "mental, physical, and ethical development" (Ravitch, 2013) that students need. Ravitch is disgusted by the way that children are beginning to be valued solely for their test scores instead of the worth of their character, and she suggests schools shift their curricular priorities to be more expansive and accessible to all students.
Reaction: Reading Ravitch's claims helped me solidify my beliefs about the need for a well-rounded curriculum in American public schools. I was so fortunate to be offered pottery, film, French, economics, world religions, history, environmental sciences, creative writing, and advanced calculus all in one school. The problem is, I paid for that service and I agree with Ravitch that all children have a right to what I paid for. I believe that the inequities that are rooted in deeply rooted racism and classism manifest themselves in and are exacerbated by the differences in curricular opportunities amongst schools. I wish Ravitch explained more about how offering a wider range of courses to low-performing students it would affect their academic performance and personal growth. I feel conflicted because I do want all students to do well in math and reading, but I also know that only studying a few subjects that I am not good at every day would demolish my love of learning. Overall, Ravitch's points about the essentials of a good education made me more excited to research well-rounded curricula and gave me more confidence in my ideas about the topic. If more legislators knew about all of the positive affects of electives and enriching curricula, they might realized that pressuring schools to perform well in a few subjects leads to a well-rounded curriculum being compromised.
Chapter 24: The Essentials of a Good Education in Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools
Citation: Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Vintage.
Summary: Acclaimed education historian and policy analyst Diane Ravitch has many ideas about how to improve public education. Ravitch's third solution states, "Every school should have a full, balanced and rich curriculum, including the arts, science, history, literature, civics, geography, foreign languages, mathematics, and physical education" (Ravitch, 2013). Having a full range of electives and academic opportunities is a reality for schools in affluent communities, but children who grow up in low-income areas do not have a similar experience with curriculum. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have linked federal funding and teacher evaluation to high test scores in math and reading, thus undermining the value of enriching academic areas other than those that are tested. Ravitch asserts that the sole purpose of education is "to prepare everyone to assume the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy," and that narrow curricula are not going to provide enough inspiration and information to students who are learning where their place in society will be. Rather than putting all of a school's resources and energy into a few subjects, Ravitch suggests that studying civics, government, economics, statistics, foreign language, creative writing, and the arts to help prepare students for life ahead. It is a diverse curriculum and ample opportunities for personal growth that will provide the time and place for the "mental, physical, and ethical development" (Ravitch, 2013) that students need. Ravitch is disgusted by the way that children are beginning to be valued solely for their test scores instead of the worth of their character, and she suggests schools shift their curricular priorities to be more expansive and accessible to all students.
Reaction: Reading Ravitch's claims helped me solidify my beliefs about the need for a well-rounded curriculum in American public schools. I was so fortunate to be offered pottery, film, French, economics, world religions, history, environmental sciences, creative writing, and advanced calculus all in one school. The problem is, I paid for that service and I agree with Ravitch that all children have a right to what I paid for. I believe that the inequities that are rooted in deeply rooted racism and classism manifest themselves in and are exacerbated by the differences in curricular opportunities amongst schools. I wish Ravitch explained more about how offering a wider range of courses to low-performing students it would affect their academic performance and personal growth. I feel conflicted because I do want all students to do well in math and reading, but I also know that only studying a few subjects that I am not good at every day would demolish my love of learning. Overall, Ravitch's points about the essentials of a good education made me more excited to research well-rounded curricula and gave me more confidence in my ideas about the topic. If more legislators knew about all of the positive affects of electives and enriching curricula, they might realized that pressuring schools to perform well in a few subjects leads to a well-rounded curriculum being compromised.